16. Self-Insurance for Health Care Liability Coverage
Sections 2267f and 2267g
These sections provide a definition of affiliated health care providers for the purpose of permitting controlling legal entities to provide self-insured health care liability coverage to health care providers employed by or affiliated with the controlling legal entity under a single plan.
I am vetoing these sections to remove the definition of affiliated health care providers because this language is overly broad and does not achieve the intent of the motion to limit the use of the definition to health care providers for the purposes of Chapter 655. I am directing the Commissioner of Insurance to provide a definition of affiliated health care providers by administrative rule to better achieve the intent of the motion and eliminate the ambiguity regarding the affiliated health care providers who are affected by this provision. 17. Termination and Dissolution of the Health Insurance Risk Sharing Plan and Authority
Section 9122 (1L) (b) 7. a. and 8. a.
This section requires the Board of Directors of the Health Insurance Risk Sharing Plan Authority to develop a proposal for the dispensation of the plan's cash assets after all financial obligations of the plan and authority are satisfied, and requires the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance to follow the proposal in dispensing of the assets. To the extent feasible and practical, the proposal shall return remaining assets to the sources from which they were derived or, if not feasible and practical, use the remaining assets in support of activities providing an indirect benefit to the insurers, providers and covered persons. Following the transfer of administrative responsibility for the dissolution of the plan, the Commissioner of Insurance shall take any action necessary to wind up the affairs of the plan and shall provide the final financial statements of the plan to the Legislative Audit Bureau.
I am partially vetoing this section because I object to the inflexibility of the requirement that the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance follow the proposal developed by the board for the dispensation of assets. Although I agree with the Legislature's intent to return remaining assets to the sources from which they were derived, the Commissioner of Insurance requires the flexibility to ensure that the plan for the dispensation of the assets is implemented in a manner that it is reasonable and compliant with the office's statutory and fiduciary duties; all applicable legal, administrative and regulatory requirements; and executive branch policy.
18. Tobacco Use Surcharge for State Employee Health Insurance
Sections 715, 731 and 9112 (2)
These sections require the Group Insurance Board to implement a tobacco use surcharge program for state employees and annuitants.
I am vetoing this entire provision because new federal guidance regarding wellness programs and tobacco use surcharges would make the program too onerous to administer and will likely only increase costs without achieving the goal of encouraging tobacco users to quit.
The tobacco use surcharge program was proposed before recent federal guidance was issued that limits how these types of programs can be designed and implemented. For example, in addition to waiving the surcharge for medical reasons, a reasonable alternative to paying the surcharge, such as participation in a tobacco cessation program, must be offered. Individuals do not necessarily have to stop using tobacco.
Given these and other federal restrictions, the state is unable to design the program in a way that will achieve the desired outcome of fewer people using tobacco products and still be cost-effective to administer.
19. OpenBook for Municipalities
Sections 65b, 65d, 65f and 65h
These sections require counties and any cities, villages and towns with populations larger than 5,000 to disclose expenditures relating to operations, contracts and grants on
the Department of Administration's searchable Internet Web site, otherwise known as OpenBook Wisconsin, by September 1, 2016. Additional information related to municipal grants or contracts is also required. OpenBook Wisconsin is the department's system that will make state government operations expenditures available for inspection
by the public on the Internet, in a searchable format.
I am vetoing this provision in its entirety because the proposal will create a significant unfunded mandate on local governments and consequently, their taxpayers. I support the goal of transparency in government, however, ensuring that the over 200 municipalities have the technical ability to interface this data with the current OpenBook Wisconsin system will be a huge undertaking and is likely to require significant investments to ensure that the reporting is accurate, complete and consistent across municipalities. Therefore, I encourage the Legislature to develop separate legislation that requires local governments to be more open and transparent about expenditures, but also offsets a portion of the increased costs with funding available from a grant program.
20. Self-Funded Portal Administrative Rules
Sections 189r and 190
These sections authorize the Department of Administration to enter into and enforce agreements with individuals to provide information technology services, as well as charge individuals for those services. These sections also require the department to promulgate administrative rules for any fees that would be assessed to individuals for information technology services related to the portal.
I am partially vetoing these sections because it is administratively burdensome to promulgate rules for each potential fee, especially as these fees will be voluntary, not mandatory. I will, however, direct the department to identify any new fees established for individuals when posting notices that new electronic government services are available.
21. Information Technology Infrastructure Transfers
Sections 188m, 200 [as it relates to s. 20.505 (1) (kk)], 424, 426m and 427 These sections permit the transfer of positions, equipment or systems associated with information technology infrastructure from any executive branch agency to the Department of Administration, if a joint request is submitted to and approved by the Joint Committee on Finance under 14-day passive review. The provision also specifies data that must be included in any request and establishes an appropriation to receive assessments received from agencies for the provision of these infrastructure services.
I am vetoing sections 188m and 426m and partially vetoing sections 200 [as it relates to s. 20.505 (1) (kk)], 424 and 427 because they are unnecessary and will impede the ability of the executive branch to manage state government operations in the most efficient and effective way possible. Consolidation of information technology infrastructure at the Department of Administration will save money and positions in individual agencies and improve services such as disaster recovery, 24/7 support and network security without a negative impact on privacy. The Division of Enterprise Technology already provides services to over 21,000 users and will use this expertise, as well as the ability to leverage economies of scale on hardware and software purchases and enterprisewide licensing. I will direct the department, in consultation with the information technology executive steering committee, to proceed with the information technology infrastructure services consolidation through memoranda of understanding with additional executive branch agencies. The department can include a request to formalize those agreements in the 2015-17 biennial budget. 22. Prison Industries Procurements
Sections 114b, 114bd and 9301 (1e)
These sections specify that for furniture enumerated in the Department of Corrections' Badger State Industries list, the price must be comparable to, rather than equal to or lower than, the price that may be obtained through a competitive bid or sealed proposal.
I am vetoing this provision because I believe that this change has the potential to provide an unfair advantage to Badger State Industries compared to the private sector. My veto will retain current law and retain the appropriate balance between supporting prison industries and the private sector.
23. Division of Facilities Development Fee
Section 155m
This section directs the Division of Facilities Development within the Department of Administration to charge a fee to state agencies for the building program that is based on the division's budgeted expenditures rather than 4 percent of each building project budget as it has been done for decades.
I am vetoing this section because the modification to the fee methodology will make it administratively much more difficult for the division to effectively oversee the state's building program. The division needs the flexibility to bill the fee after the design and bidding phases of the project have been completed and the project is set to enter the construction phase. Particularly for larger, more complex building projects, completion of the design and bid phases may not coincide with the biennium in which the project is approved, which makes it difficult to pinpoint an exact bidding and contract date and assign a project to a specific fiscal year. In addition, under the current methodology, agencies have a clear understanding of the size of the fee, as opposed to an allocation that may change as projects are resized or rescheduled.
24. Study of Public Library System Efficiencies
Section 9101 (3L)
This section requires the Department of Administration, in consultation with the Department of Public Instruction, to conduct a study to identify potential savings in public library systems through consolidation, technology, efficiencies, LEAN practices and service sharing. Under the section, the Department of Administration is required to submit a report on the study to the Joint Committee on Finance by July 1, 2014.
I am vetoing this section because it is unnecessary. The Department of Public Instruction is the appropriate agency to conduct such a study and has the ability to do so, without a legislative directive, if it believes a study is warranted.
25. Report Requirement Related to Overweight Permits for Raw Forest Products
Section 2175i
Section 2175i requires the Department of Transportation to submit a report regarding the impact of overweight permits issued for the transport of raw forest products under s. 348.27 (9), including information on the number of permits issued, accidents involving permitted vehicles and the economic impacts of these permitted vehicles. I am vetoing this section to remove this reporting requirement because it is burdensome to the department and is duplicative of multiple studies that have been conducted on potential changes to the size and weight limits of commercial vehicles in the state.
26. Relocation of Outdoor Advertising Signs
Sections 1556m, 1556n, 1556p, 1556q, 1556r, 1556s, 1556t, 9345 (7c) and 9445 (7c)
These provisions replace the term "realignment" with the term "relocation" in the case of nonconforming outdoor advertising signs that are moved in the course of a highway construction project; allow the sign to be moved to another location within the jurisdiction of the city, village or town in which the sign is located; and specify that relocation of a sign does not change the sign's status with respect to local ordinances. Additionally, the provisions require any relocated sign to be the same size and maintain the same height with respect to the highway grade as the original sign. Finally, the provisions specify that a relocated sign must meet all departmental requirements for sign permits.
I am vetoing these provisions because they would result in increased highway project costs related to the relocation of nonconforming outdoor advertising signs and create the potential for significant project delays that result from litigation related to the relocation of these signs.
27. Highway Signage—Shrine of Our Lady of Good Help
Section 9145 (9w)
Section 9145 (9w) requires the Department of Transportation to erect and maintain two directional signs for the Shrine of Our Lady of Good Help on the northbound and southbound lanes of STH 57 in Brown County. This section further requires the installation of these signs notwithstanding statutory or administrative rule prohibitions
regarding sign placement.
I am vetoing this section because these signs are expressly exempted from sign placement standards. In addition, I object to this provision because its requirements circumvent the established application and administrative process for determining the placement and approval of highway signage, including criteria regarding the entity responsible for the cost of erecting and maintaining the signs.
28. Highway Signage—Milwaukee Central Library
Section 1581t
Section 1581t requires the Department of Transportation to erect and maintain signs entitled "Historic Milwaukee Public Library" on both Interstate 43 and Interstate 794 in Milwaukee County. This signage is intended to alert motorists of the location of the Milwaukee Central Library. The section also prohibits the department from charging any
fee related to erecting or maintaining these signs.
I am vetoing this section because it circumvents the established application and administrative process for determining the placement and approval of highway signage, including criteria regarding the entity responsible for the cost of erecting and maintaining these signs.
29. Speech Language Pathologist and Audiologist Fees
Sections 2179g, 2179r, 2183d, 2187am, 2187b and 2230m
